Richard Dawkins and Denis Noble are prominent figures in evolutionary biology, but they hold differing views on the mechanisms of evolution and the interpretation of key concepts within the field.
Whereas Richard Dawkins believes that The Selfish Gene concept is an accurate and powerful representation of who we are, figures such as Denis Noble argue that these views are both reductionist and limiting. The co-evolution of what are often described as diametrically opposing perspectives in biological science, is even more surprising with the knowledge that Noble supervised Dawkins for his DPhil Thesis while at Oxford University. More so than the metaphors, the mutual respect between these two authors, scientists and public figures is still evident today.
Dawkins’ DNA
Richard Dawkins is best known for his gene-centred view of evolution, which he elaborated in his influential book The Selfish Gene (1976). His arguments can be summarised as follows:
- Gene-Centred Evolution: Dawkins argues that evolution operates primarily at the level of the genes. According to this view, genes are the fundamental units of selection, and organisms are essentially “vehicles” created by genes to ensure their own survival and replication.
- Selfish Genes: The concept of the “selfish gene” refers to the idea that genes act in a way that maximises their own survival, often at the expense of other genes. While genes may produce co-operative behaviour, such behaviour is ultimately in service of gene replication.
- Reductionism: Dawkins’ approach is often seen as reductionist because it explains complex biological phenomena by reducing them to the actions of genes. He emphasises that understanding evolution requires focusing on how genes influence traits and behaviours, which in turn affect an organism’s reproductive success.
- Extended Phenotype: Dawkins also introduced the concept of the “extended phenotype,” which suggests that the influence of a gene is not limited to an organism’s body but can extend into the environment. For example, a beaver’s dam-building behaviour can be seen as an expression of its genes, where the base code affects the outcome in a deterministic manner.
Noble Perspectives
Denis Noble is a physiologist who worked on the pacemaker of the heart – demonstrating that the regulation of cardiac oscillation is an emergent property of the cardiac system. From this perspective, genes play a role but are not directly causal in generating the heart’s rhythm.
His arguments therefore centre around functionality and systems-perspectives, promoting holistic approaches and philosophies that critics often cite as “not strictly scientific”; By nature of being interdisciplinary and emergent – this is likely to be the case. His arguments are outlined in his book The Music of Life (2006):
- Systems Biology: Noble argues that life should be understood as a complex, integrated system rather than being reduced to the actions of individual genes. He believes that biological functions emerge from the interactions between genes, cells, tissues, and the environment – as opposed to defining them.
- Critique of the Central Dogma: Noble challenges the traditional “central dogma” of molecular biology, which states that information flows in one direction: from DNA to RNA to proteins. He points out that there are homeostatic feedback loops and bi-directional epigenetic influences that complicate this simplistic model.
- Downward Causation: Noble emphasises the concept of “downward causation,” where higher levels of biological organisation (like tissues or organs) can influence the activity of genes. This contrasts with Dawkins’ view, which sees causation as primarily upward, from genes to traits.
- Holism vs. Reductionism: Noble advocates for a holistic approach to biology, where the organism is viewed as an integrated whole. He argues that focusing solely on genes overlooks the importance of epigenetics, the environment, and the interactions between different levels of biological organisation.
- Evolutionary Processes Beyond Natural Selection: Noble suggests that mechanisms such as symbiosis, epigenetic inheritance, and even the role of organisms in shaping their own environments plays a significant part in evolution. These ideas challenge the gene-centred view by suggesting that evolution is not driven solely by competition between genes.
- The God Delusion: At the cultural or emergent level, these philosophies are contrasting in their theistic potential – is evolution driven by blind biological forces under a deterministic atheist lens, or is there an intentional, overarching order to proceedings? In Noble’s view, genes are used by the system – dancing to the organism’s tune and not the other way around. In contrast, for Richard Dawkins, the survival of genes in “the gene pool” is ultimately all that matters, and we are but vehicles in that objective. Dawkins describes himself as a “cultural Christian”, who enjoys the benefits of religious rituals without believing in the potential or concept of a God (or purposeful / conscious universe in Abrahamic Metaphysics) – benevolent or otherwise.
Defining Differences
- Selection and Emergence: Dawkins focuses on genes as the primary unit of selection, whereas Noble argues that selection occurs at multiple levels of biological organisation, and genes are just one part of a complex system – the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
- Deterministic and Stochastic Causality: Dawkins supports a gene-centred causality, while Noble promotes a systems biology approach that involves downward causation and feedback mechanisms (accounts for the role of chance / experiences / environment on outcome / genetic expression).
- The Weismann Barrier: A vital pillar of Dawkins’ argument is that characteristics acquired in one generation cannot be passed in any meaningful way through the germ line – as evolution selects for the gene, not the behaviour. Denis Noble argues that recent evidence shows changes in function can indeed pass through the germ line, and that our inherited assumptions around The Weismann Barrier are themselves faulty; Therefore this underlying assumption of a barrier in gene-centricity has become a central dogma in science.
The debate between Dawkins and Noble represents a broader discussion within science about how best to understand the complexity of life – balancing “objective” scientific data and evidence with subjective emergent experiences and properties.
While Dawkins’ gene-centred view has been highly influential and is widely accepted in many circles, Noble’s critiques have also gained traction amongst those who seek integrative understandings of biology. Both perspectives contribute to our understanding of evolution, but they emphasise different aspects of the process, so while these perspectives may peacefully co-exist, they may bear very different wider implications.
One of these implications centres around the mind-body dualism of Descartes, which initially enabled science to progress away from religious dogma and prohibition. The current pharmaceutical model and clinical trial format is based on a form of dualism that isolates the mind / imagination in the form of placebo. This may need to be re-evaluated given its significance on an individuals’ experience of health and life, and is further emphasised in the placebo paradox of psyche-delic medicines.
